shawngibson

<p>Tim - I am consistent and capable of professional and beautiful work. I don't doubt myself. Just sharing what I've heard from people I don't know.</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks Michael. I don't edit myself. I prefer to show my warts and shining images. I suppose today in an e-world that might not be such a good thing. Everyone can click on a filter after taking a smartphone pic.</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi All, I've signed up to modelmayhem, because, well, I don't have friends to shoot anymore; everyone I know is a lawyer, accountant, married, or otherwise not interested.</p> <p>I've uploaded some of my old photos, in an effort to attract new models/actors/dancers. Am I doing myself a service or disservice here by showing my old images?</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1090844</p> <p>On modelmayhem, I've had 2 models who want to work with me. That's a good start. But I also have a bunch of photographers saying my work is crap, or old, or boring. So I'm not sure if I should be showing my old work?</p> <p>Suggestions, please and thank you?</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I'd like to buy a filter kit (like <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1131615-REG/formatt_hitech_htmk8577_ken_kamineski_85mm_master.html">THIS</a> one) that will work with a Mamiya 75mm Shift lens, which is 105mm thread, and smaller threads as well.<br> Any Mamiya lenses (and I assume the 105mm thread will be the largest, the only others I want are the 140 macro and the 50/4.5) will be on a Mirex EOS-to-M67 TS adapter on a Sony E-Mount. Any EOS or E-Mount lenses will also be on a Sony body, minus the Mirex adapter. </p> <p>Is it possible to get a kit that will work on all of these lenses, with the obligatory step-up rings?</p> <p>I'm a filter newb. In all my decades of photography I've never even owned a UV filter lol...</p> <p>Merci:)<br> Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks Jochen. I've chosen the Mamiya lenses (67 format, namely the 75mm shift and 140mm macro) because they seem decent and fit my budget.</p> <p>Are you saying that I could buy something like this <a href="http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Toyo-View-45GII-4x5-Monorail-Large-Format-View-Camera-835-/401100943025?hash=item5d637aaeb1:g:tDoAAOSwbwlXAv7R">Toyo</a> and then just buy a front for Mamiya 67 lenses, and a back for Canon EOS (as I have the adapter) and that's all I'd need to do?</p> <p>I want, of course, the most movement possible within my budget. </p> <p>The GX680/Sony conversion guy got back to me and said he can build me a system for Mamiya 67 lenses. His work is <a href="http://chiek.co.kr/list/view.php?id=6807&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=5&PHPSESSID=63bbb6d9133e1ba1e1d3618329e56afb">here</a>. I'm note sure of the price, but based on the linked page, it seems reasonable ($1199USD for everything but the lenses if I'm reading the page correctly.</p> <p>What would the trade-off be if I am correct in the Toyo/custom front and back vs. a GX680 conversion?</p> <p>I really need to buy a book on LF movements. </p> <p>Shawn</p> <p> </p>

<p>And now it gets confusing:</p> <p>"The Mamiya 645 autobellows has complete front movements.<br> I adapted one to the NEX and A900 for use as a "digital back" by removing the rear standard and replacing with a modified focusing base from a Minolta slide copier that has a tilting camera platform. The platform uses an adapter that clamps the bellows opening around the NEX lens mount. Uses standard Mamiya 645 lenses with movements at infinity."</p> <p>From here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2969508</p> <p>Not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound good...</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I suppose technically this isn't a LF question, but I suspect I'll find the most knowledge here.</p> <p>I've always wanted a camera with movements, namely to correct perspective, to allow for stitching, and to allow for portraits with 'that look' via tilt.</p> <p>I currently have a Sony a7II and NEX-7, and plan on getting an A7RII when the used prices come down (say next year).</p> <p>I know there are solutions out there which would allow me lots of movement with these cameras, but they are all out of my reach financially (i.e. Cambo, Horseman, Novoflex).</p> <p>There was a guy out there who chopped up Fuji GX680 and converted them for Sony use with whatever lenses, but he has been off the grid for a couple years, and hasn't responded to me.</p> <p>I've cobbled together a 'kit' in my head, but I have no idea if, in theory, it should work. So I'd like to ask for advice.</p> <p>Simply:</p> <p>1) For portraits, the Mirex Tilt/Shift adaptor (EOS mount, as I have the Metabones already), with a FotodioX 645-67 Mamiya adapter, and the 75mm (67) shift lens.<br> 2) For stitching, the same, using Photoshop to stitch the output.<br> 3) For macro, the Mirex adapter housed to the Mamiya Tilt/Shift Bellows with the 645-67 adapter and the 140mm macro lens.</p> <p>The Mirex is here:</p> <p>http://www.mirex-adapter.de/preisliste.htm</p> <p>And the bellows I mean is this:</p> <p>http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Mamiya-645-PRO-TL-PRO-M645-AFD-AUTO-BELLOWS-N-SHIFT-TILT-SWING-UP-DOWN-/222078199946?hash=item33b4e4688a:m:m_EmWGfVq0TbOdhQBtn52uA</p> <p>Having no experience here, I'd really appreciate if you guys could chime in. </p> <p>Merci:)<br> Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks Peter. I'm a manual focus person. Both the 24mm and 90mm will be on Sony bodies with Metabones IV adapters to carry aperture info to the body. Don't care about AF.</p> <p>Between my eye, focus peaking, and magnification, I'm sure I'll be fine. I'm not a sports shooter:)<br> Shawn</p>

<p>An example of how I use 'tilt' which is to say, selective focus:</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18212397-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Edit: This was a Contax S2 with Zeiss 50/1.4, Delta 100 in PMK Pyro scanned using a Minolta scanner. The "tilt" as well as all other modifications are in PhotoShop.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks all. I'm glad I posted this. To be fair, most of the 'reviews' I've read have been comparisons between the Mk I & II, in which case I suppose it just makes sense that the II will be the 'shiny new better' of the two.</p> <p>I am also glad that looking at samples myself, I find nothing bad about the Mk I, so I'm happy to take all reviews with a grain of salt.</p> <p>My goal is to pair the 24mm up with the 90mm TS-E for a pair of portrait lenses (24mm on APS-C is a favourite of mine for horizontal portraiture) as well as multi-shot stitches with my 360deg. head. I'm not sure if one can do multi-stitching with a perspective-corrected image, though...any thoughts there?</p> <p>For decades I've been artificially blurring images in the same or similar manner to a tilt-shift lens, for example like some of Paolo Roversi's older work (he works mostly with large format, of course). I've always wanted to get a real tilt-shift setup. So here I am:)</p> <p>I'd also like to get a circa 2:1 macro setup with a telephoto lens (I have a focus rail available, and do image stacking with Helicon, using a pair of microscopes, so I'd like to do the same with a camera). Would the 90mm with a couple of extension tubes achieve this? I suspect if I can get 2:1-ish, the movements of the lens will reduce the need for stacking somewhat...</p> <p>As you can see, I'm trying to get the most out of the least amount of gear, largely because I only have about $3000Cdn to spend at the end of April (yep, bonus time lol).</p> <p>Shawn</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi guys,</p> <p>The Mark I gets a lot of bad reviews, but the images on Flickr look good to my eye...which of course means nothing given it's just little compressed Internet images.</p> <p>Is the Mk I really so bad, compared to the Mk II or the Rokinon?</p> <p>I can't afford the Mk II...much as I'd like the extra movement and larger image circle.</p> <p>What flaws of the Mk I can NOT be fixed in PhotoShop?</p> <p>Merci:)<br> Shawn</p>

<p>Could I possibly adapt this to work? </p> <p>http://www.ebay.ca/itm/CONTAX-AUTO-Tilt-Shift-EXTENSION-BELLOWS-Unit-f-CY-Macro-Close-Up-/351683755813?hash=item51e1fc3f25:g:cwIAAOSwHgVW8V5B</p> <p>I do like the idea of having corrections available, but I always thought that for a 35mm plane (24x36), you needed medium format lenses because of the image circle. Forgive my ignorance.</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I made some images of a friend about 20 years ago, all on a Pentax 67. Couple of years ago, I decided to turn them into a triptych, so I cut them up (scary!) and fed them into my Minolta scanner, then merged the individual results.</p> <p>I finally 'saw' a result I'd like to achieve, but I'm having some issues, namely, my lack of knowledge about anatomy.</p> <p>I'm trying to create an image that goes from adult, to adolescent, to child (see image below). But I'm having a very hard time. The adult (left) is properly proportioned of course, because it is untouched. I've not dealt with the adolescent (middle) yet, but the child (right) just looks like a shrunken mature woman, not a child.</p> <p>What sorts of things would you do, in Photoshop, using all the creative tools available, to turn an adult body into the body of a child?</p> <p>I think...less muscle, more baby fat...shorter arms and chubby fingers...no hips...rounded bum...bigger head(?). I'm kinda lost on this...any anatomical help would be greatly appreciated.</p> <p>This is a WIP, so my apologies...</p> <p>Shawn</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18208763-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks Brian. It's very challenging and time-consuming...but it's really cool because I am essentially making 'studies' layer after layer, while not having to consume paint, canvas, materials. </p> <p>At the end of the day, they will still be digital, and won't have that awesome smell of lavender oil of spike and Canada Balsam, but they'll be pretty...I hope:)</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks very much guys, appreciated:)</p> <p>So I need:</p> <p>R-to-FE adapter<br /> >><br /> Bellows II<br /> >><br /> Leica 14167 M-to-R adapter<br /> >><br /> M-mount lens</p> <p>Is that correct? I plan on getting the 90mm Summicron (Canada) not a Dual Range. Also, per your advice, I'm planning on getting a Zeiss ZM 35/2.0 Biogon, but I was hoping to put some distance between my lens and the subject, namely living insects. The primary use of these lenses is walk-around portraiture: 35mm on the A7II and 90mm on the NEX-7 via Voigtlander VM-E (close-focus M-to-FE adapter). Gives me a 35mm/135mm (equiv.) kit. Great:)</p> <p>I'm sure I'm misunderstanding a bit of the advice here. I can't get an M-Mount bellows and hook that into the VM-E because of clearance issues with the Sony, yes?</p> <p>Also, I have a focus rail and plan on moving that, rather than refocusing the lens, such that I can keep the magnification consistent, for focus stacking. Is that plan solid?</p> <p>Merci:)<br /> Shawn</p>

<p>Wow that's confusing. Thanks Stephen. I don't know how to translate that into a Sony body. </p> <p>Is there a bellows that's just a bellows, for M-mount?</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi guys,</p> <p>Is it possible to mount a 90mm Summicron (old one) to an A7II and NEX-7 via the Voigtlander VM-E and some sort of bellows?</p> <p>I'd like to get very close, i.e. say a fly filling the entire frame.</p> <p>Merci:)</p> <p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hey guys,</p> <p>I've only seen this for sale once, it was $1600USD with de-clicking and new mount.</p> <p>Is this lens generally available? I don't see it on Ebay. What's the normal value of it? I've seen its images on Flickr, love the lens.</p> <p>Merci:)<br> Shawn</p>

<p>Wow, when I had to 'select a category' most of these categories are the ones I created for PDN almost 20 years ago. I'm getting old...</p> <p>I've been putting a concerted effort lately into something I'm completely unfamiliar with: namely, painting photographs.</p> <p>I know there are techniques spanning the history of photography for taking a monochrome image and colourizing it, but usually they are based on huge blocks of colour (for example, an entire face with a particular colour or a swath of blue for a dress); but I've been trying to actually paint old BW photos (both digital and film) with a Wacom pen in a manner that is more like a painter, i.e., almost pixel-by-pixel.</p> <p>When I paint, which is rare these days, there is a lot of material involved, i.e. paint; and there's also a lot of wasting that material because I scrape a lot of it off in order to find what I'm looking for.</p> <p>With Photoshop, that's not a problem:)</p> <p>I've never used PS to "paint" before and frankly, as someone who always works from photos, I always want to start with the photo. In other words, I've no interest in creating 'brush strokes' ex nihilo.</p> <p>So I've been sticking to basic brushes on a colour layer in PS and just adding fake colour, with the occasional dodge/burn layer and the occasional 'drawing' layer to sharpen softness in key points, like the shadows of eyes.</p> <p>The short of it is, while I'm not wasting money on paint, it is STILL just as time-consuming to 'paint' in PS as it is with a canvas. Several months into this, I've still not finished a single 'painting'.</p> <p>But I must say, it is INCREDIBLY rewarding each night to come home from work and not be afraid to create something new, because I know it is non-destructive, and it is also not going to cost me money for paint:)</p> <p>Applying painterly techniques, for example the turbid effect (Reubens) in Photoshop, layering, adding depth by way of another layer, it is all incredibly fascinating.</p> <p>Here are a few examples, and I must stress, none of them are finished...but wow this is fun:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1089361</p> <p>Have any of you turned photos into digital paintings? If so, what advice do you have, given my early efforts?</p> <p>Shawn</p> <p> </p>